DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment and Claim Status
The amendment filed 26 May 2026 has been entered. Claim 4 has been canceled. Claims 1–3 and 5–16 are pending in the application. Claims 12–16 are withdrawn from consideration.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-–3 and 5–9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kwon (KR 2017/0075963 A; art already of record) in view of Yamamoto (US 2021/0376326 A1; art already of record).
Regarding Claims 1, 5, and 6, Kwon discloses an anode (see multilayer electrode, [0012], which may be a negative electrode, [0048]) for a lithium secondary battery (see lithium secondary battery, [0058]), comprising:
an anode current collector (see current collector, [0014]); and
a first anode active material layer (see electrode mixture layer located relatively closer to the current collector, [0020]) and a second anode active material layer (see electrode mixture layer located relatively farther from the current collector, [0020]) sequentially stacked on a surface of the anode current collector ([0014]), each of the first anode active material layer and the second anode active material layer comprising an anode active material and a binder ([0015]).
Kwon does not explicitly disclose wherein a ratio of a content of a free binder unbonded with the anode active material in the second anode active material layer based on a weight of the binder included in the second anode active material layer to a content of a free binder unbonded with the anode active material in the first anode active material layer based on a weight of the binder included in the first anode active material layer is 0.6 or less (Claim 1), wherein the free binder content of the second anode active material layer is 6% or less (Claim 5), nor wherein the free binder content of the first anode active material layer is 10% or more (Claim 6). However, Kwon does disclose ([0016]) that the binder content of the first anode active material layer is greater than the binder content of the second anode active material layer. Note that Kwon is analogous to the claimed invention as it is in the same field of lithium secondary batteries.
Yamamoto teaches an anode (see electrode, [0089], which can comprise a negative electrode active material, [0030]) for a lithium secondary battery (see lithium ion cell, [0097]), comprising: an anode current collector (see current collector, [0028], [0089]); and an anode active material layer (see electrode-active-material layer, [0026], [0089]) on a surface of the anode current collector ([0028], [0089]), the anode active material layer comprising an anode active material and a binder ([0026], [0030]). Yamamoto teaches that increasing the content of free binder unbonded with the anode active material in the anode active material layer based on a weight of the binder included in the anode active material layer (see amount of binder present in the free form in the slurry, e.g. [0028])—which can be accomplished by e.g. increasing the amount of binder in the anode active material layer ([0086])—increases the adhesion ability between the anode active material layer and the surface of the anode current collector ([0028], [0086], [0087]). However, Yamamoto also discloses ([0080]) that excessively increasing the content of binder relative to the content of anode active material in the anode active material layer can decrease cell capacity. Note that Yamamoto is analogous to the claimed invention as it is in the same field of lithium secondary batteries.
A result-effective variable is a variable which achieves a recognized result. The determination of the optimum or workable ranges of a result-effective variable is routine experimentation and therefore obvious (MPEP § 2144.05.II). In the instant case, the free binder content is a variable that achieves the recognized result of affecting the adhesion ability of the anode active material layer to the current collector and the cell capacity, as taught by Yamamoto, thus making the free binder content a result-effective variable.
It would therefore have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust the free binder content in each of the first and second active material layers independently (considering e.g. their proximity to the anode current collector) in the anode of Kwon such that a ratio of a content of a free binder unbonded with the anode active material in the second anode active material layer based on a weight of the binder included in the second anode active material layer to a content of a free binder unbonded with the anode active material in the first anode active material layer based on a weight of the binder included in the first anode active material layer is 0.6 or less, the free binder content of the second anode active material layer is 6% or less, and the free binder content of the first anode active material layer is 10% or more, via routine experimentation, for the for the purpose of achieving suitable levels of adhesion ability to the current collector and contribution to cell capacity for each of the anode active material layers.
Regarding Claim 2, modified Kwon discloses the anode for a lithium secondary battery as set forth above. Kwon further discloses (e.g. Example 1 [0074]–[0078]) wherein the first anode active material layer and the second anode active material layer are each formed from an anode slurry containing the anode active material and the binder.
However, it is submitted that the above limitation is considered to be a product-by-process limitation, and even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process (In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964,966).
Modified Kwon does not explicitly disclose wherein a free binder content calculated by Equation 1 below of the first anode active material layer is greater than a free binder content calculated by Equation 1 below of the second anode active material layer:
[Equation 1]
Free Binder Content (%) = [(WUI–WUF)/BT]*100
wherein, in Equation 1, BT is a total weight (g) of the binder included in the anode slurry,
the anode slurry is phase-separated into an upper slurry and a lower slurry by centrifuging at 15,000 rpm for 20 minutes, and a weight (g) of the upper slurry after being dried is represented as WUI, and
WUF is a weight (g) after firing the dried upper slurry by heating from a room temperature to 400 °C at a rate of 50 °C/min.
However, it can be understood that as it has already been established in the rejection of Claim 1 above that the free binder content of the first anode active material layer is greater than the free binder content of the second anode active material layer in modified Kwon, this will be the case regardless of how said free binder content is calculated.
Regarding Claim 3, modified Kwon discloses the anode for a lithium secondary battery as set forth above. Kwon further discloses wherein the anode slurry further comprises a conductive material ([0041], [0076]).
Regarding Claim 7, modified Kwon discloses the anode for a lithium secondary battery as set forth above. Kwon further discloses wherein each of the first anode active material layer and the second anode active material layer comprises a silicon-based active material and a carbon-based active material as the anode active material ([0050], [0053], Example 1 [0074]–[0078]; note that while [0053] refers to the electrode as a “cathode”, it can be understood based on the context of e.g. [0050] and [0054] that this is a translation error and the electrode being referenced is the negative electrode, i.e. anode).
Regarding Claim 8, modified Kwon discloses the anode for a lithium secondary battery as set forth above. Modified Kwon further discloses wherein the carbon-based active material comprises artificial graphite (see crystalline artificial graphite, [0050]).
Regarding Claim 9, modified Kwon discloses the anode for a lithium secondary battery as set forth above. Kwon further discloses ([0056]) wherein a content of the silicon-based active material is from 1 to 10 wt% based on a total weight of the anode active material, which overlaps with the claimed range of from 5 wt% to 30 wt%. Note that when the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP § 2144.05.I).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kwon (KR 2017/0075963 A; art already of record) in view of Yamamoto (US 2021/0376326 A1; art already of record) as applied to Claim 1 above, in further view of Song et al. (US 2022/0069293 A1; art already of record).
Regarding Claim 10, modified Kwon discloses the anode for a lithium secondary battery as set forth above, but does not disclose wherein a degree of vertical orientation of the carbon-based active material included in the first anode active material layer is smaller than a degree of vertical orientation of the carbon-based active material included in the second anode active material layer.
Song teaches an anode (see negative electrode, [0033]) for a lithium secondary battery (see rechargeable lithium battery, [0033]) comprising: an anode current collector (see current collector, [0033]); and a first anode active material layer (see first layer, [0034]) and a second active material layer (see second layer, [0034]) sequentially stacked on a surface of the anode current collector ([0034]), each of the first anode active material layer and the second anode active material layer comprising an anode active material ([0034]) and a binder ([0088]), wherein each of the first anode active material layer and the second anode active material layer comprises a silicon-based active material and a carbon-based active material as the anode active material ([0085]). Song teaches that a degree of vertical orientation of the carbon-based active material (see DD (Degree of Divergence), [0035], [0044]–[0046], FIG. 2) included in the first anode active material layer should be smaller than a degree of vertical orientation of the carbon-based active material included in the second anode active material layer in order to allow electrolyte to be readily immersed in the anode active material layer and to shorten a transfer path of lithium ions, thus resulting in an anode with excellent high-rate characteristics ([0046]). Note that Song is analogous to the claimed invention as it is in the same field of lithium secondary batteries.
It would therefore have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the anode of modified Kwon such that a degree of vertical orientation of the carbon-based active material included in the first anode active material layer is smaller than a degree of vertical orientation of the carbon-based active material included in the second anode active material layer, as taught by Song, for the purpose of allowing electrolyte to be readily immersed in the anode active material layer and to shorten a transfer path of lithium ions, thus resulting in an anode with high-rate characteristics.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kwon (KR 2017/0075963 A; art already of record) in view of Yamamoto (US 2021/0376326 A1; art already of record) as applied to Claim 1 above, as evidenced by Chen et al. (“An Overview of Lithium-ion Batteries for Electric Vehicles”; art already of record) and Tian et al. (“Electrochemical Characteristics of Layered Transition Metal Oxide Cathode Materials for Lithium Ion Batteries: Surface, Bulk Behavior, and Thermal Properties”; art already of record).
Regarding Claim 11, modified Kwon discloses the anode for a lithium secondary battery of Claim 1. Kwon further discloses a lithium secondary battery (see lithium secondary battery, [0058]), comprising:
the anode for a secondary battery according to Claim 1.
Kwon does not explicitly disclose a cathode facing the anode, however one of ordinary skill in the art will understand that this will necessarily be the case in a functioning lithium secondary battery, as evidenced by Chen (FIG. 2 and FIG. 3).
Kwon does not explicitly disclose the cathode including a lithium-transition metal oxide as a cathode active material. However, it is well-known in the field of lithium secondary batteries that layered lithium transition-metal oxides are a prominent type of cathode active material that can increase energy densities and lifetime, reduce costs, and improve safety for electric vehicles and grid storage, as evidenced by Tian (p. 89 ¶ “CONSPECTUS: Layered lithium…”).
It would therefore have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the lithium secondary battery of modified Kwon such that the cathode includes a lithium-transition metal oxide as a cathode active material, as it is well-known in the field as evidenced by Tian that layered lithium-transition metal oxides are a prominent type of cathode active material that can increase energy densities and lifetime, reduce costs, and improve safety for electric vehicles and grid storage.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments in the Remarks filed 26 May 2026 regarding the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejections in the Office action mailed 24 February 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive for the following reasons:
Applicant argues on p. 10–12 of Remarks that the anode for a lithium secondary battery of amended Claim 1 exhibits unexpected effects/improvements sufficient to establish unobviousness within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 103. Applicant specifically argues that Example 8 of the instant specification, in which the ratio of the free-binder content between two distinct electrode active material layers exceeds 0.6, exhibits significantly higher 10 second discharge resistance, a lower rapid charge capacity retention, and a significantly higher adhesion reduction ratio compared to the other Examples satisfying the claimed ratio of the free-binder content between two distinct electrode active material layers of 0.6 or less.
This argument is not persuasive. Firstly, as set forth in MPEP § 716.01(c).II, arguments presented by the Applicant cannot take the place of evidence in the record. In re Schulze, 346 F.2d 600, 602, 145 USPQ 716, 718 (CCPA 1965) and In re De Blauwe, 736 F.2d 699, 705, 222 USPQ 191, 196 (Fed. Cir. 1984). Examples of statements which are not evidence and which must be supported by an appropriate affidavit or declaration include statements regarding unexpected results, commercial success, solution of a long-felt need, inoperability of the prior art, invention before the date of the reference, and allegations that the author(s) of the prior art derived the disclosed subject matter from the inventor at least one joint inventor. In the instant case, Applicant is arguing unexpected results but is not supporting this assertion with an appropriate affidavit or declaration. Secondly, as set forth in MPEP § 716.02(b).I, evidence relied upon should establish “that the differences in results are in fact unexpected and unobvious and of both statistical and practical significance.” Ex parte Gelles, 22 USPQ2d 1318, 1319 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1992). In the instant case, Applicant does not appear to have provided any statistical analysis that would establish these results as unexpected and unobvious. Further, Applicant argues that Example 8 “exhibits significantly higher 10 second discharge resistance, a lower rapid charge capacity retention, and a significantly higher adhesion reduction” when compared to Examples 1–7 which include free binder content ratios within the claimed range. However, it is noted, for instance, that Example 8 exhibits what appears to be an only slightly higher 10 second discharge resistance (743.5 mΩ) compared to e.g. Example 6 (742.8 mΩ), that Example 8 exhibits what appears to be a better rapid charge capacity retention at 500 cycles (91.0%) compared to e.g. Examples 1 (90.3%) and 6 (89.2%), and finally that Example 8 exhibits an only slightly higher adhesion reduction (35.2%) compared to e.g. Example 3 (32.2%) (Tables 1 and 3). Thus, it is respectfully submitted that Applicant’s assertion that Example 8 exhibits “significantly” worse properties than the other Examples which satisfy the claimed range does not appear to be supported by the data of the instant specification. Thirdly, as set forth in MPEP § 716.02(d).II, to establish advantageous results over a claimed range, Applicants should compare a sufficient number of tests both inside and outside the claimed range to show the criticality of the claimed range. In re Hill, 284 F.2d 955, 128 USPQ 197 (CCPA 1960). In the instant case, Applicant is for example claiming a range for the ratio of free-binder content of 0.6 or less, but does not reference any examples within the range of greater than 0 and less than 0.23, and only one example outside of the claimed range and less than 1 (this being Example 8, with a ratio of 0.65).
Applicant argues on p. 13–14 of Remarks that the cited references do not disclose the ratio of the free-binder content of the second anode active material layer to the free-binder content of the first anode active material layer, that Kwon merely describes the total binder content ratio, but fails to disclose or suggest the free-binder content ratio between two distinct electrode active material layers as required by the present application, and that Yamamoto merely describes the ratio of the aqueous binder content in a free state relative to 100 parts by weight of the active material in the slurry, and fails to disclose the ratio of the free-binder content between two distinct electrode active material layers as in the present application.
This argument is not persuasive. As set forth above in the rejection above, it is acknowledged that neither Kwon nor Yamamoto explicitly disclose the ratio of the free-binder content of the second anode active material layer to the free-binder content of the first anode active material layer within the claimed range. However, the cited references do render obvious the limitations of Claim 1; specifically, the teachings of Yamamoto establish the free binder content of an anode active material layer as a result-effective variable which, as set forth in MPEP § 2144.05.II, it would be obvious to optimize via routine experimentation, thus coming up with free binder contents for the first and second anode active material layers of modified Kwon which satisfy the claimed ranges.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JULIA MARIE FEHR, Ph.D. whose telephone number is (571)270-0860. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, BASIA RIDLEY can be reached at (571)272-1453. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/J.M.F./Examiner, Art Unit 1725
/BASIA A RIDLEY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1725
Prosecution Insights